» Articles » PMID: 29249206

Early Health Technology Assessment of Future Clinical Decision Rule Aided Triage of Patients Presenting with Acute Chest Pain in Primary Care

Overview
Date 2017 Dec 19
PMID 29249206
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective of the paper is to estimate the number of patients presenting with chest pain suspected of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in primary care and to calculate possible cost effects of a future clinical decision rule (CDR) incorporating a point-of-care test (PoCT) as compared with current practice. The annual incidence of chest pain, referrals and ACS in primary care was estimated based on a literature review and on a Dutch and Belgian registration study. A health economic model was developed to calculate the potential impact of a future CDR on costs and effects (ie, correct referral decisions), in several scenarios with varying correct referral decisions. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the model outcome to changes in input parameters. Annually, over one million patient contacts in primary care in the Netherlands concern chest pain. Currently, referral of eventual ACS negative patients (false positives, FPs) is estimated to cost €1,448 per FP patient, with total annual cost exceeding 165 million Euros in the Netherlands. Based on 'international data', at least a 29% reduction in FPs is required for the addition of a PoCT as part of a CDR to become cost-saving, and an additional €16 per chest pain patient (ie, 16.4 million Euros annually in the Netherlands) is saved for every further 10% relative decrease in FPs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcome was robust to changes in model inputs, with costs outcomes mainly driven by costs of FPs and costs of PoCT. If PoCT-aided triage of patients with chest pain in primary care could improve exclusion of ACS, this CDR could lead to a considerable reduction in annual healthcare costs as compared with current practice.

Citing Articles

Management of acute chest pain in the Emergency Department: benefits of coronary computed tomography angiography.

Sarto G, Simeone B, Spadafora L, Bernardi M, Rocco E, Pelle G Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024; 40(12):2447-2457.

PMID: 39541059 DOI: 10.1007/s10554-024-03274-w.


Cost-effectiveness of a rule-out algorithm of acute myocardial infarction in low-risk patients: emergency primary care versus hospital setting.

Johannessen T, Halvorsen S, Atar D, Munkhaugen J, Nore A, Wisloff T BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):1274.

PMID: 36271364 PMC: 9587629. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08697-6.


Evaluating possible acute coronary syndrome in primary care: the value of signs, symptoms, and plasma heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP). A diagnostic study.

Willemsen R, Winkens B, Kietselaer B, Smolinska A, Buntinx F, Glatz J BJGP Open. 2019; 3(3).

PMID: 31581111 PMC: 6970583. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen19X101652.

References
1.
Buntinx F, Knockaert D, Bruyninckx R, de Blaey N, Aerts M, Knottnerus J . Chest pain in general practice or in the hospital emergency department: is it the same?. Fam Pract. 2001; 18(6):586-9. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/18.6.586. View

2.
Carroll K, Majeed A, Firth C, Gray J . Prevalence and management of coronary heart disease in primary care: population-based cross-sectional study using a disease register. J Public Health Med. 2003; 25(1):29-35. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdg007. View

3.
Nilsson S, Scheike M, Engblom D, Karlsson L, Molstad S, Akerlind I . Chest pain and ischaemic heart disease in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2003; 53(490):378-82. PMC: 1314597. View

4.
Kohn M, Kwan E, Gupta M, Tabas J . Prevalence of acute myocardial infarction and other serious diagnoses in patients presenting to an urban emergency department with chest pain. J Emerg Med. 2005; 29(4):383-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.04.010. View

5.
Bakx C, Schwarte J, van den Hoogen H, Bor H, van Weel C . First myocardial infarction in a Dutch general practice population: trends in incidence from 1975-2003. Br J Gen Pract. 2005; 55(520):860-3. PMC: 1570769. View